$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Anthropogenic alteration of the nitrogen cycle is one of the most challenging problems for the Earth system1. Human activity has at least doubled the levels of reactive nitrogen available to the biosphere2. However, there remain large uncertainties regarding how the global N cycle is evaluated. A few flux estimates have been quantified with less than ±20% error, and many have uncertainties of ±50% and larger3. These uncertainties indicate the need for accurate estimations of denitrification rates across ecosystems and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of variation. Denitrification is a microbial activity through which nitrogenous oxides, mainly nitrate and nitrite, are reduced to dinitrogen gasses, N2O and N24. The pathway is highly relevant to the biosphere availability of reactive nitrogen because it is the primary process of removal5. N2O is a greenhouse gas with a warming potential nearly 300 times that of CO2 over 100 years, and it is the current major cause of stratospheric ozone depletion due to the large quantities being emitted6,7.
In the following, we present a protocol for estimating sediment denitrification rates using cores and N2O microsensors experimentally (Figure 1). Denitrification rates are estimated using the acetylene inhibition method8,9 and measurements of the accumulation of N2O during a defined period (Figure 2 and Figure 3). We demonstrate the method by applying it to mountain lake sediments. This case study highlights the performance of the method for detecting relatively low rates with minimal disturbance to the physical structure of the sediments.
Denitrification is particularly difficult to measure10. There are several alternative approaches and methods, each with advantages and disadvantages. Drawbacks to available methods include their use of expensive resources, insufficient sensitivity, and the need to modify the substrate levels or alter the physical configuration of the process using disturbed samples10. An even more fundamental challenge to measuring N2 is its elevated background levels in the environment10. The reduction of N2O to N2 is inhibited by acetylene (C2H2)8,9. Thus, denitrification can be quantified by measuring the accumulated N2O in the presence of C2H2, which is feasible due to low environmental N2O levels.
The use of C2H2 to measure denitrification rates in sediments was developed about 40 years ago11, and the incorporation of N2O sensors occurred about 10 years later12. The most widely applied acetylene-based approach is the "static core". The accumulated N2O is measured during an incubation period of up to 24 h after the C2H2 is added to the headspace of the sealed sediment core10. The method described here follows this procedure with some innovations. We add the C2H2 by bubbling the gas in the water phase of the core for some minutes, and we fill all the headspace with sample water before measuring the accumulation of N2O with a microsensor. We also include a stirring system that prevents the stratification of the water without resuspending the sediment. The procedure quantifies the denitrification rate per sediment surface area (e.g., µmol N2O m-2 h-1).
The high spatial and temporal variation of denitrification presents another difficulty in its accurate quantification10. Usually, N2O accumulation is measured sequentially by gas chromatography of headspace samples that are collected during the incubation. The method described provides improved monitoring of the temporal variation of the N2O accumulation, because the microsensor provides a continuous signal. The microsensor multimeter is a digital microsensor amplifier (picoammeter) that interfaces with the sensor(s) and the computer (Figure 1a). The multimeter allows several N2O microsensors to be used at the same time. For instance, up to four sediment cores from the same study site can be measured simultaneously to account for the spatial variability.
The core approach barely disturbs the sediment structure compared to some other methods (e.g., slurries). If the integrity of the sediments is altered, this leads to unrealistic denitrification rates13 that are only adequate for relative comparisons. Higher rates are always obtained with slurry methods compared to core methods14, because the latter preserves the limitation of denitrification by substrate diffusion15. Slurry measures cannot be considered representative of in situ rates16; they provide relative measures for comparisons made with the exact same procedure.
The method described is appropriate for estimating denitrification rates in any sediment type that can be cored. We particularly recommend the method for performing experimental manipulations of some of the driving factors. Examples are experiments that modify nitrate availability and temperature as needed for estimating the energy activation (Ea) of denitrification17 (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Experimental setup. (a) General experimental setup to estimate sediment denitrification rates using cores and N2O microsensors. The incubation chamber ensures darkness and controlled-temperature (±0.3 °C) conditions. Five intact sediment cores can be processed simultaneously using their respective N2O sensors. (b) N2O sensor calibration chamber. We adapted it with rubber stoppers and syringes to mix the N2O water (see protocol step 3.4.3). There is a thermometer to control the water temperature. (c) Close-up of a sediment core sample with the sensor inserted into the central hole of the PVC cover and the joints sealed with adhesive tape. The stirrer is hanging in the water, and the electromagnet is close to it and fixed to the external part of the acrylic tube. (d) Close-up of the N2O microsensor tip protected by a metal piece. (e) A sediment core that has just been recovered. It was sampled from a boat in a deep lake; the acrylic tube with the core is still fixed to the messenger-adapted gravity corer19. See the Table of Materials for all the items needed to perform this method. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.